In addition to what I have said
here
...The argument, couched in somewhat high falutin' terms may be summarised not in vapid emotivist responses, but in terms of the questions which noise poses for the general appreciation of music. 'Noise music' contians within it a naturaly anachronism, that of the conjoining of two opposed terms. In itself this is not something that the general music listener is unfamiliar with; cf the changing face of R & B; philosophically speaking, some us have actually realised that post-modernism does not refer to what it seems to (and I'm damned if I can be arsed to regurgitate that argument)...
The referent 'noise' refers to several things (again, see my posts in above link). What the general argument here is referring to is a slightly different side of things; One group of protagonists assert the anachronism of the apparant referent for noise (which is an mis-understanding of which 'noise' the word noise refers). Another side asserts, badly: That noise, by dint of its appearance as a general category of music, must therefore have a dialogue to which we can appeal. This dialogue is very much present but not explicit; were it to be made explicit, we would probably found that the aesthetic criteria, such as they might be, would not refer to harmony, melody, counterpoint and the like, but timbre, volume, volume dynamics* and sub-categories/ criteria of enharmonics, sub-categories of musique concrete's criteria.
Now. Can we stop having these stupid "I think it is." "I think it isn't". "Well, I think you're wrong." "Well, it's all subjective" arguments and talk about things with at least the slightest modicum of intelligence.
PLEASE?
*Volume dynamics is a different category to volume; if this isn't clear, then perhaps you're not thinking about noise in anything like a properly critical fashion.